Spreading Democracy - Mission Being Accomplished!
 

The USA is definitely succeeding in spreading American-style Democracy in the Middle East! :p

http://www.subaru-svx.net/photos/files/Bipa/31401.gif


http://www.subaru-svx.net/photos/files/Bipa/31402.gif

ha ha ha ha :D :D :D

Bipa, you sure are critical of the U.S. as a Canuckistani living in Germany.

your pictures are funny, but what's even funnier is that Canada spends a smaller share of their national wealth on military obligations than any NATO nation except Luxembourg and Iceland (which has no military at all).


sit back, have a Tim Horton's donut (or some struedel), and relax. we'll take care of Canada. and if Germany gets out of line again, we'll take care of them, too. ;)

I’m not sure where you get your figures. Canada is currently the 7th largest military spender of NATO’s 26 members, and either the 15th or the 16th largest in the world when looking at actual dollars spent. (depending on sources) Its expenditure is more than the 12-lowest NATO spenders combined.

Using only GDP numbers will skew the outlook completely. I could argue in this case that the USA doesn't spend nearly enough (3% of GDP in 2000, ranked #1 in overall spending) in comparison with Saudi Arabia (14.9%, ranked #9). Meanwhile, Honduras spent 7% of GDP, but ranked #140 in terms of overall spending. These are all US State Department figures for year 2000.

The latest “reputable” report I found that you would probably accept is the “Comparisons of US and Foreign Military Spending” dated January 28, 2004, which I found on a US State Department site http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/30046.pdf . It shows Canada in 16th spot in year 2000 globally. Funding did go down in 2002 but was increased in 2003, and has been increased again in the latest federal budget to almost double over the next 5 years.

According to the SIPRI Yearbook 2005, in 2004 Canada ranked 13th in terms of overall spending, and ahead of South Korea in terms of per capita spending.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, in their February 7, 2005 report, “U.S. Military Spending vs. the World”. showed Canada in 15th spot. http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001221.php


Here are some interesting figures, taken from a July 26, 2005 CBC report.

Canada
Population
Today: 32,507,874 (2004 estimation)
Second World War: 11,507,000 (1941 census)
First World War: 7,207,000 (1911 census)
Land
Canada occupies 9,093,507 sq km, making it the second largest country in the world after Russia.
Canada has 243,791 km of coastline and 8,893 km of borders.
Military expenditure
Canada's defence budget for 2004: $13 billion.
Promised budget boost: $12.8 billion over the next five years.
Armed Forces
Today: 62,000 military personnel including 9,500 sailors, 19,500 soldiers, 14,500 air force personnel and 20,000 administrative and support personnel. There are also about 22,000 reservists.
Second World War: 60,000 men and women enlisted in Canada's armed forces in one month (September 1939) after the declaration of war.
First World War: More than 600,000 Canadians enlisted to fight in the First World War from 1914-1918.
Navy
Today: There are 30 surface ships, four submarines and 9,500 sailors in Canada's navy.
Second World War: At the end of the war, Canada had the third-largest fleet in the world, after the U.S. and the U.K. 23 Canadian ships were sunk by German U-Boats in the Battle of St. Lawrence alone.
First World War: During the course of the First World War, Canada's naval service grew to a force of 9,000 men and 100 ships.
Canadians on the front lines
Today: More than 1,200 members of the Armed Forces are deployed overseas.
Second World War: More than one million served and approximately 45,000 died.
First World War: Almost 620,000 Canadians served in First World War and 66,000 died.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/


Meanwhile, I think you’ll find this article interesting:

Too much spent on military: critic
Stephen Thorne

Canadian Press
Tuesday, October 25, 2005

OTTAWA -- After years of hearing complaints that it wasn't spending enough on defence, the federal government was told Tuesday it is spending too much.

In an eight-page report to the Commons finance committee, the socially oriented Polaris Institute urged Ottawa to freeze the "alarming amount" of public funds designated for the military.

Canada has all but abandoned its traditional UN peacekeeping role in favour of NATO peacemaking and U.S.-led offensive operations, said report author Steven Staples, the think-tank's director of security programs.

Last February, the federal budget promised $12.8 billion in new defence spending over the next five years, much of it one-time expenditures rather than cumulative.
Still, the annual defence budget is expected to increase to almost $20 billion from about $13 billion by decade's end.

Staples warned that much of the promised new spending is ill-planned, designated for programs and equipment that meet a U.S. agenda, not Canadian.

"We are witnessing the Americanization of the Canadian Armed Forces," he said.
He said last spring's defence policy statement, which charted a new course for the military, is not acceptable. The federal government needs to consult Canadians before deciding what to do with its Armed Forces, he said.

He called on Ottawa to freeze defence spending until it produces a full-blown white paper on defence.

Defence officials did not immediately respond to the paper.

Military spending is surpassing anything since the Second World War, Staples said. Yet Canada has become a "freeloader" in the United Nations.

"In 1992-93, participation in UN-led missions accounted for more than $9 of every $10 Canada spent on international military missions," Staples said.

"A decade later, in 2004-2005, the United Nations has virtually been abandoned, accounting for a mere 30 cents of every $10 Canada spends on military missions abroad."

In July, the UN had more than 61,000 soldiers conducting peacekeeping missions worldwide, he said. Canada's contribution was just 216 personnel.

Canada currently ranks 36th on the list of UN peacekeeping nations, roughly on par with Peru and Guatemala.

Canada's military has, however, contributed thousands of soldiers to U.S.- and NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

Staples acknowledged that military requirements have been evolving since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, but he said those changes should be addressed through the UN.

"Nothing gives legitimacy to a military mission like the United Nations."

His paper focused on Canada's role in intervention but did not address Canada's domestic defence and security requirements.

http://www.canada.com/national/story...6-6f3653c391bf

Are we going here again? My only comment is that I am a strong supporter of the second ammendment and fail to see why the uninformed have such a problem with it. Since it's mostly liberal media types that have never touched a gun, it shouldn't surprise me.

dude, guns freaking ROCK!!!!!

however, it does suck that it's not possible to buy certain weapons and toys that some law enforcement and military get. :(

this kid is having fun. :D

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Picture...d-abuse-16.jpg

Let's ban cars too! Cars are the #1 killer in the US! :)

Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the proponents of gun control, has a platoon of bodyguards equipped with the same "assault rifles" that the public is not allowed to own in California. An assault rifle, as defined by California law, is any gun that looks mean enough for a Columbine kid. They do not define an assault rifle by its ability to fire in automatic mode, but by an arbitrary set of rules which focus more on meanness than murder rate. We should have gotten rid of pistols, especially .25 ACP "Saturday Night Specials", before taking aim at so-called "assault rifles", which are better suited for hunting on the range than a drive-by on the streets. Assault rifles aren't exactly easy to conceal compared to a pistol, you dig? :confused:

Also, I forgot to mention that she's got a gun of her own, concealed carry, IIRC. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:

Informative post Bipa, but meh, screw guns. Wars would be cooler with swords, axes, and boards with pointy nails at the end.I dunno, seems it takes alot less skill to shoot a gun at someone than do some melee combat, and if wars actually took skill, mabey there wouldnt be as many of them. Just a thought there.

oh yeah, swords rock too. hacking flesh is fun too! :)

my same thoughts... i already lost one grandfather over there to the germans trying to take over the world and "clense" it.....i dont think you have any room to talk sir.
phil

is forced freedom true freedom?


who made america the dictator of morality and justice?

Nothing wrong with owning a gun. It's when you suspect your neighbor may have a dog that may start barking at night, so you go over there and shoot it. You know..... just to be on the safe side.

Kinda like Iraq.

Guns are fine unless someone evil gets a hold of them....you know.... Like a terrorist or a republican. :D

Meh, wars were just as common back then. But at least you had to know what you were doing to kill someone with a sword. :rolleyes:

Isn't it funny that we had the Crusades back in the good ol' days? Y'know, like 2002?

To be honest, though, I think it's the fundamentalist Muslims that are going a little crazy on their interpretations this time.

Well, the odds say that forced freedom should be better than a forced dictatorship... Just like a DOHC engine should be better than an old OHV one....

Back to the real world....

This "forced freedom" you talk of should only be forced until one of them there democracies is established.... Just like we forced democracy on Japan... Look at Japan now... they're at the top of the economic food chain. I won't discuss their interesting fetish for underage girls, though. :)

COMPLETELY WRONG!!!! You complete idiot.... You BUY the GUN to SHOOT the OWNER, NOT the DOG! Eliminate the problem at the source! Besides, that's animal cruelty. :rolleyes: